Our foreign colleagues rather quickly began to speak out about the partial mobilization announced by President Putin.

And in principle, they quite sensibly convey the speeches of both Putin and Shoigu, believing that everything that their reader needs to know is said there.

For example, the Austrian

Wochenblick

simply states:

"Probably, this step will be a response to the offensive of Ukraine and the supply of weapons by the West to Ukraine

. "

The Austrian

Heute

is trying to turn up the heat:

“Putin’s speech was not without threats to the US and the EU: “We will use all our resources to protect our people ... This is not a bluff

. ”

But the press gentlemen have forgotten that Putin has said this more than once.

You just didn't want to hear.

However, like all the last months.

And so the seemingly calm

Berliner Zeitung

puts a hysterical headline: "300 thousand reservists: Putin orders partial mobilization, threatens with nuclear weapons."

Wow, downright threatening?

Then you read an article, and for some reason there is not a word about the threat at all: “Putin mentioned nuclear weapons.”

Mentioned and threatened - is there a difference?

There is.

You don't have to be so cheap.

Here V. Zelensky, for example, directly threatened a non-peaceful atom shortly before February 24 - and everyone pretended that this simply did not happen.

Die Zeit

, in its news blog, in response to the news of partial mobilization in the Russian Federation, put a very timely note “Germany will not supply weapons to attack Russia”:

“We are not talking about the supply of weapons that can attack Russia, said a deputy official in Berlin government representative Wolfgang Buechner.

The German government has so far denied Ukraine the supply of Western battle tanks.

There is no new line here, said a Department of Defense spokesman

.

Well, despite the fact that Scholz considers partial mobilization a consequence of Russia's military failures, he stubbornly bends his line so as not to give Ukraine heavy weapons.

Glimpses of wisdom sometimes slip through.

The German

FAZ

believes that

"partial mobilization is a departure from the previous line of the Kremlin and an unprecedented event in the recent history of Russia

. "

And yes, D. Peskova mentioned:

“He said just a week ago that at present there is no talk of mobilization

. ”

These Germans simply never lived either in the GDR or in the USSR and do not know how the Russian people can read information perfectly, with high accuracy.

So it was a smoke screen just for you kitties.

Hungarian newspapers, both right and left, maintain informational neutrality.

Alfahir

(right-wing conservatives):

"The West has crossed all boundaries in its aggressive anti-Russian policy," the Russian president said, accusing the Western powers of conspiring against Russia and using nuclear blackmail

.

The far-left newspaper

444

stops at a quote from Shoigu:

“The Minister of Defense claims that fewer than 6,000 Russian soldiers have died in combat to date.

”

Without estimates and political hysteria.

The French

Le Figaro

, with a little rottenness, but quite accurately, quotes the main thing from the speech of the Russian president:

“The Russian president said that he was taking such a step to“ support the referendum processes ”initiated on Tuesday by the Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, which will be held with 23 to 27 September.

“The decree on partial mobilization has been signed and will come into force today,” Vladimir Putin said, carefully avoiding the use of the term “war” throughout his speech.

However, the head of state insisted that "we are talking only about partial mobilization," and not about general mobilization, as the population feared

.

But this time the Finns turned out to be the most calm and balanced.

Iltalehti

writes:

"The Finnish Defense Forces are reassuring the Finns that there is still no immediate military threat to Finland"

, posting a statement from the local MoD on Twitter.

Indeed, one cannot compare Finland with the Kyiv regime.

So stupid.

With such power.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.